On 19/02/2013 15:22, "Michael Hopwood" <michael@editeur.org> wrote:
> Thanks Mo!
>
> That's exactly the central edge case (oops): "what about real people appearing
> 'as themselves' in a fictional work? The person themselves is as real as you
> or I, but the events in which they participate are fictional"
I would probably suggest that the real person "playing themselves" in a
movie would be described as a Person not a Character.
>
> Or - what about where the events & people are all real, but there are several
> versions of each? In the end you come back to the central problem, "who says?"
> or "where does it say"?
That is an issue of provenance, reputation and trust of the description and
its author - not the vocabulary used to represent it.
~Richard.
>
> <indecs> [1] and CIDOC-CRM [2], and schemas based on them, both deal with this
> by simply adding explicit provenance, and allowing person, thing & event as
> subject (e.g. in LIDO [3] or ONIX [4])...
>
> [1] http://www.doi.org/topics/indecs/indecs_framework_2000.pdf
> [2] www.cidoc-crm.org/
> [3] http://www.lido-schema.org/schema/v1.0/lido-v1.0-schema-listing.html
> [4] http://www.editeur.org/83/Overview/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mo McRoberts [mailto:Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk]
> Sent: 19 February 2013 15:07
> To: LeVan,Ralph
> Cc: Ed Summers; Wallis,Richard; Michael Hopwood; Dawson, Laura; Martin Hepp;
> Thad Guidry; Web Schemas TF; Gregg Kellogg
> Subject: Re: FictionalThing proposal added to Web Schemas wiki
>
> As I understand it, the BBC's internal archive classification scheme wrestled
> with precisely this issue - in the end it settled on 'people', 'fictional
> people' and 'religious entities', with some fairly clear guidelines about what
> to do if there was doubt about which of latter two somewhere should sit (and
> all three were considered mutually exclusive). At least then the consumer of
> the data can deal with the information as it sees fit.
>
>